3 ms·

> These opinions seem to be fueled mostly by chatter in the right-wing media sphere, especially Tucker Carlson in recent days. I don't listen to Tucker Carlson

> These opinions seem to be fueled mostly by chatter in the right-wing media sphere, especially Tucker Carlson in recent days. I don't listen to Tucker Carlson, but I have been listening to what you have been telling me in this thread. From your own first-hand testimony I have learned: - You have first-hand knowledge of faculty applicants who have been rejected on the basis of their belief that universal pronoun protocols are not necessary, or that they personally prefer not to volunteer their own pronouns. - You do not count this as a political litmus test, instead you accuse the applicant of being political by having an opinion that is different from what students are demanding. - You acknowledge that the institution is extending asymmetric affordances, and picking winners and losers on a charged topic, but rationalize this by citing market forces and a philosophy that the customer is always right. Even if I had heard nothing else, that right there is the case for an illiberal trend. Some opinions are endorsed while others are rejected in the hiring process, and this is not based on any appeal to truth, fairness, or equal protection, but rather the arbitrary demands of the customer. Respectfully, the fact that you would tell me all of this openly, but then think that I need right-wing agitation to consider this an illiberal trend, just reinforces to me how much of an echo chamber academia must have become. I'm sorry, but no amount of condescension on your part will convince me that this is ok. > You yourself said that you are dismissive of positive first-hand accounts because you assume they are just politically biased. I told you that I would credit such accounts if they came from someone who had significant disagreements with the dominant thinking on these subjects, and was able to be hired without hiding this. It is little credit to the fairness of a process if the people who are aligned with the ruling school of thought find the process to be unburdensome.

ModernMech 4y ago
> You have first-hand knowledge of faculty applicants who have been rejected on the basis of their belief that universal pronoun protocols are not necessary To be clear I already admitted I was wrong about this after checking the other faculty signatures. The call to put pronouns in signatures wasn't mandatory. I certainly look very poorly at statements that go on and on about pronouns and rate them at the bottom, because as I said, we've already had this debate as a community, and a job application/interview is not the time nor the place for that debate to be rekindled. > - You do not count this as a political litmus test, instead you accuse the applicant of being political by having an opinion that is different from what students are demanding. Yes, and I don't see why that's a problem, because it wouldn't be tolerable in any other workplace to bring your personal political opinion into the interview. Imagine if I had an interview at BigCo and started complaining about capitalism, and how the CEO owner didn't work for his money, and that I feel he should reorganize the entire corporation so that workers controlled everything. Would you call me political for bringing those opinions to the interview, or would you call the owner political because he's forcing his capitalistic economic model on me? > You acknowledge that the institution is extending asymmetric affordances, and picking winners and losers on a charged topic It's not charged in our community. Just because the political Twittersphere goes crazy over some topic doesn't mean it's a big deal for everyone. Some communities can arrive at a different norm than others, and it's not "picking winners and losers" if that community starts rejecting outsiders who violate the community's norms. Sure it may be sad for the outsiders who wanted to participate, but it's not up to the community to accommodate the outsider's political sensibilities. I'm sorry you feel this is illiberal, but if it makes you feel any better, these standards were the result of intense community debate, and were voted on. At some point, things need to move on. We can't be in a perpetual debate about pronouns forever. > Respectfully, the fact that you would tell me all of this openly, but then think that I need right-wing agitation to consider this an illiberal trend, just reinforces to me how much of an echo chamber academia must have become. I have no idea what motivates you specifically, but it's not a coincidence that a furor of a thousand+ comments bubbled up here about DEI statements in academia at the same exact time the right wing media sphere also was very concerned about DEI statements in academia. > I told you that I would credit such accounts if they came from someone who had significant disagreements with the dominant thinking on these subjects, and was able to be hired without hiding this. That's definitely not me, but at the same time I doubt you've tried hard to seek these people out. Are you waiting for this person to drop in your lap? There are plenty of them out there, but they know not to bring their political opinions to a job interview. That always seemed like common sense to me, but it seems to now be a problem for some reason.
- haberman 4y ago
  > To be clear I already admitted I was wrong about this after checking the other faculty signatures. The call to put pronouns in signatures wasn't mandatory. I was referring to prospective faculty, not current faculty. I saw your correction wrt current faculty, but this discussion is about hiring processes and how they act as political filters in the current climate. > Yes, and I don't see why that's a problem, because it wouldn't be tolerable in any other workplace to bring your personal political opinion into the interview. If you don't want to hear personal political opinion, don't require a personal statement on a contentious political issue as part of the application. It's as simple as that. If you ask for a statement, but reject perspectives associated with the other side, then you have made it a political litmus test. > Some communities can arrive at a different norm than others, and it's not "picking winners and losers" if that community starts rejecting outsiders who violate the community's norms. If those norms are illiberal, then rejecting outsiders who violate those norms is also illiberal. Even if you debated and voted on them. > it's not a coincidence that a furor of a thousand+ comments bubbled up here about DEI statements in academia at the same exact time the right wing media sphere also was very concerned about DEI statements in academia. This is a site where people comment on current news stories. That said, diversity policy in business and academia is by no means a new or unusual topic of conversation here. In any case, it seems like some good evidence that this is actually a contentious issue that many people have genuinely strong feelings about.

ModernMech 4y ago

> You have first-hand knowledge of faculty applicants who have been rejected on the basis of their belief that universal pronoun protocols are not necessary To be clear I already admitted I was wrong about this after checking the other faculty signatures. The call to put pronouns in signatures wasn't mandatory. I certainly look very poorly at statements that go on and on about pronouns and rate them at the bottom, because as I said, we've already had this debate as a community, and a job application/interview is not the time nor the place for that debate to be rekindled. > - You do not count this as a political litmus test, instead you accuse the applicant of being political by having an opinion that is different from what students are demanding. Yes, and I don't see why that's a problem, because it wouldn't be tolerable in any other workplace to bring your personal political opinion into the interview. Imagine if I had an interview at BigCo and started complaining about capitalism, and how the CEO owner didn't work for his money, and that I feel he should reorganize the entire corporation so that workers controlled everything. Would you call me political for bringing those opinions to the interview, or would you call the owner political because he's forcing his capitalistic economic model on me? > You acknowledge that the institution is extending asymmetric affordances, and picking winners and losers on a charged topic It's not charged in our community. Just because the political Twittersphere goes crazy over some topic doesn't mean it's a big deal for everyone. Some communities can arrive at a different norm than others, and it's not "picking winners and losers" if that community starts rejecting outsiders who violate the community's norms. Sure it may be sad for the outsiders who wanted to participate, but it's not up to the community to accommodate the outsider's political sensibilities. I'm sorry you feel this is illiberal, but if it makes you feel any better, these standards were the result of intense community debate, and were voted on. At some point, things need to move on. We can't be in a perpetual debate about pronouns forever. > Respectfully, the fact that you would tell me all of this openly, but then think that I need right-wing agitation to consider this an illiberal trend, just reinforces to me how much of an echo chamber academia must have become. I have no idea what motivates you specifically, but it's not a coincidence that a furor of a thousand+ comments bubbled up here about DEI statements in academia at the same exact time the right wing media sphere also was very concerned about DEI statements in academia. > I told you that I would credit such accounts if they came from someone who had significant disagreements with the dominant thinking on these subjects, and was able to be hired without hiding this. That's definitely not me, but at the same time I doubt you've tried hard to seek these people out. Are you waiting for this person to drop in your lap? There are plenty of them out there, but they know not to bring their political opinions to a job interview. That always seemed like common sense to me, but it seems to now be a problem for some reason.

haberman 4y ago
> To be clear I already admitted I was wrong about this after checking the other faculty signatures. The call to put pronouns in signatures wasn't mandatory. I was referring to prospective faculty, not current faculty. I saw your correction wrt current faculty, but this discussion is about hiring processes and how they act as political filters in the current climate. > Yes, and I don't see why that's a problem, because it wouldn't be tolerable in any other workplace to bring your personal political opinion into the interview. If you don't want to hear personal political opinion, don't require a personal statement on a contentious political issue as part of the application. It's as simple as that. If you ask for a statement, but reject perspectives associated with the other side, then you have made it a political litmus test. > Some communities can arrive at a different norm than others, and it's not "picking winners and losers" if that community starts rejecting outsiders who violate the community's norms. If those norms are illiberal, then rejecting outsiders who violate those norms is also illiberal. Even if you debated and voted on them. > it's not a coincidence that a furor of a thousand+ comments bubbled up here about DEI statements in academia at the same exact time the right wing media sphere also was very concerned about DEI statements in academia. This is a site where people comment on current news stories. That said, diversity policy in business and academia is by no means a new or unusual topic of conversation here. In any case, it seems like some good evidence that this is actually a contentious issue that many people have genuinely strong feelings about.